Roll of BU during appeal of check swing

[PeteBooth]

Just an addendum to Moose's Thread on the check swing appeal.

With the exception of not knowing the proper mechanic on check swing appeals, I think most of us if unsure would point to the BU IMMEDIATELY, especially if there is "ACTION" on the basepaths.

When we are PU, there are 2 types of Appeals, there's the appeal that comes directly from us - Right away and there is the coaches appeasement appeal (per 9.02(c)), meaning we are pretty certain of our call but to shut the coach up we will grant the courtesy appeal.

Now here's my question for all you base umpires out there.
What is your call if the following appeals take place?

1. The PU points right away

2. The PU appeasses the coach and points to you

I have been taught (me the BU), that if my partner (the PU) points to me right away, then by all means call it the way I saw it, however, if the PU does not point and the coach requests the appeal - then mimic the PU's call even if I think it's wrong.

What have you been taught?

In other words, is it better to "eat" certain calls rather than upset the pendulum.

Pete Booth

[Bfair]

Answer to your questions (based on 2 man mechanics)

As BU I always expect possibility of UIC needing my help.

In A position, I call what I think. I don't expect (and really don't want) UIC to come to me on check swing from lefthanded batter. He has best view, not me. If he comes to me, don't hang him out to dry. Make best call I can. If not sure, agree with him.

When in B or C I don't disagree with UIC unless I feel certain batter went for pitch. If certain, I call the strike. My angle is not as good, but at times can be good enough.

I shouldn't worry about whether request was result of UIC immediately coming to me after pitch or immediately coming to me after defensive request, but if he comes to me after telling coach he doesn't want to check and comes merely to appease the coach, I should agree with UIC even if decision disagrees with what I really thought. If there has been long delay in drop 3rd strike situation, don't call strike. Support partner who should have come to me right away by right mechanics. Don't put partner's t_t in a wringer with my call.

That action of supporting UIC is part of working as a team. However, I will have discussion with UIC warning him don't put me in that position again of having to agree with his lousy call or he may not find me agreeing. Either come to me right away, or don't come at all. I will cover you once, but not necessarily a 2nd time after I have discussed with you.

BTW, if I am UIC, I am taught in 2-man not to check lefthanded hitter with BU in A. Call should be made by ump with best angle, and that is UIC. I will tell that to coach if coach requests me to check. I will check BU in that situation only if BU is familiar partner and I am certain he does not mind me doing it. Otherwise, I will take on my battle with coach myself (despite what NAPBL says about must checking). I do not feel that is appropriate in 2-man scenerio.

That's how I have been trained, (and how I train)

[Tim C]

Gosh, a tough one . . .

If you don't wanta know, don't ask!

A BU in A can certainly see a checked swing by a left handed hitter well enough to help make the call.

After decades of secret signals I just call'em as they are.

[PeteBooth]

If you don't wanta know, don't ask!

Tim I agree 100% but what I'm talking about is those appeals in which WE DO NOT WANTA KNOW but to appease the coach we grant his request. Under 9.02(c) aren't we obliged to grant his appeal?

Pete Booth

[dani]

When properly appealed in A position with a right hand batter I give the UIC what I have. Still in A with a left hand batter I will stick with the UIC call, unless I am 110% sure it was a swing.

When in B and C I use the same process. If I am on the preferred side, give UIC what I have. If on the opposite side, I only will change if I am 110% sure it was a swing.

If there is a delayed check swing appeal with 2 strikes, say the pitch rolls to the back stop, is retrieved by the catcher and then an appeal is lodged I will stick with the UIC. No need to take the dirty end of the stick!

[JJ]

I tell my partners, "If you come to me, I'm going to tell you what I've got". I also tell them, "If I come to you, tell me what you've got". If s**t flies, it flies. If you don't want to know, don't ask.

[Whowefoolin]

Pete,

I'm with you! If I am sitting there and hear the coach ride PU about an appeal, I'm sticking with my guy. We are a team and he saw something that I probably didn't, but only went to me to satisfy the coach. I've got my partners back. I am not going to jeapordize my partners bond during the game for one check swing, out of probably a dozen, that he apparently had all the way, but wanted to appease a coach for.

For all we know the coach was probably scratching his a** and never saw the swing, but just heard the crowd or a kid. That is not enough to make me even consider looking my partners way (but I will), even if I did see it. It was his call, he wanted to keep initially, and if I am on Bases, he will keep his call.

(Side note: unless the guy is a complete idiot!)

[BJ Moose]

I could do a seminar on what is wrong with this post (below)

Since you gotta ask, what is the point of saying, "If you don't want to know, don't ask."? So sense.

The point is.. if you as BU are gonna change the call.. then BE 150% absolutely burn-in-hell SURE! If there are guys running around bases.. well, an after the fact appeal is probably best suited for a "no he didn't". Unless that kid literally SCREWED himself into the ground.. and EVERYONE (except the poor PU) saw it.

But that never happens.

Originally posted by JJ
I tell my partners, "If you come to me, I'm going to tell you what I've got". I also tell them, "If I come to you, tell me what you've got". If s**t flies, it flies. If you don't want to know, don't ask.

[JJ]

In Fed you don't have to ask. On every other level I will give my point of view when asked. If my partner is being "played" by a coach and "harassed" into asking or repeatedly asking, that is a separate issue that need to be dealt with. I get in a lot less trouble with the check swings if I give 'em what I've got. I also earn some credibility and respect as an official if I don't just "back up my partner" to stay out of doo-doo.

[Bfair]

I've been away from boards a few days but felt compelled to pick this thread up where JJ left of only because of his post.

JJ stated, "In Fed you don't have to ask....."

Let me tell you, some of the most pain in the butt games have occurred because some UIC refuses to check a BU when a coach asks him to. That refusal typically leads to further tension within the game (frequently needless).

Those of you on the ego trips can just keep refusing, but to the rest I strongly recommend to try to handle per NAPBL and if the defense requests you to check, go ahead and do it. If you don't, you are begging to start WWIII.

Just my opinion,

[TxUmp]

Re: calling check swing from position A or B for right or left handed batter:

In 3-man mechanics, we teach that PU should appeal to the umpire on the line regardless of which side the batter is batting from. He has a much better angle than the man inside (Poaition B or C). Why not use the same theory in 2-man mechanics. BU in Position A has a better angle to judge whether the batter actually offered at the ball
regardless of which side the batter is on.

I agree that the angle is poor in any case with runners on base. It is better to go with PU in most cases. But there are cases where he is totally blocked out (catcher comes up on high inside pitch, for instance). If PU asks in that case and the batter obviously offered at the pitch, both of you will look much better if you "call the obvious" and allow the strike.

[JJ]

"Some of you on ego trips..."

Thanks. I said in Fed you don't HAVE to ask. At all my clinics I emphasize ALWAYS ask. Again, I get shot at for telling folks what they CAN do, not what they SHOULD do.

I'm done with this forum. Everyone wants to argue, and not explore possibilities.

[Bfair]

JJ--Sorry for misunderstanding-

Just as you state at your clinics you teach you don't have to (but now indicate perhaps you should)....

I was not meaning that you, JJ, didn't necessarily check but rather, you , the some umpires and readers don't always check.

sorry, as I could have worded it better----please trust there was no malice intended


Apologies,
Steve

[PeteBooth]

I'm done with this forum. Everyone wants to argue, and not explore possibilities.

JJ, this Board is one of the "fiendliest". The problem with the Internet Dialogue is that we cannot see each other's expressions and also cannot have that true mono-on-mono dialogue in which we can ask "What did you mean by that"?

Sometimes we mean 1 thing but the way it is written comes across differently.

My guess is 1 day the Internet Forum (if not already there) will be "face-to-face". There will be a way in which we can all see each other "on screen" and perhaps engage in a more friendly and productive discussion.

Give this Board a chance.

Pete Booth

[senior]

Right on, Pete!

As I've mentioned in previous posts, I believe most of us could get along with each other in a meeting room, even if we disagreed on the subject matter. On the Internet, however, it's impossible to tell if someone is "pulling your chain", or deadly serious when responding in the written vein. As usual, no offense intended doesn't necessarily mean no offense is taken.